While I large majority of these were against very good debaters, they were all won by my opponent by one or two votes.

Thus my reasoning is as follows. Occasionally my win ratio will drop 10% in a day; the only sound rule I can deduce from such happenings would be that someone is angry at me and goes through and votes against my tied debates.

Therefor considering that each of the above listed debates was lengthy, which possibly discouraged legit debaters from reading them, it is possible that my opponent had an advantage due to illegit voters.

Finally, something that has been annoying me for sometime. The debater conspicuous_conservative was found to have multiple accounts by the webmaster and was thereby banned. However this was not before all 20 of his accounts voted against me in my debate with him, thereby making me the loser.http://www.debate.org...
I am interested to see if that will change now that he has been banned.

First, I'd like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. Second, for the good of debate.org, I'd advise that you vote without bias and vote on the actual arguments in the debate. With that said, let us proceed.

In today's case, I shall disprove the claim "It is possible that in at least one of the below listed debates my opponent had the advantage." Usually, I'd look for some technicality in the wording and turn the debate upside down for my opponent, but today, I'll play fair and uphold the polar opposite of the topic; I will prove that it is in fact IMPOSSIBLE that in at least one of the listed debates, Yraelz's opponent had the advantage. With that said, one thing must be noted. If at any time my opponent insist to resort to an argument insisting that anything is possible in reality, I will change gears and resort to a far more formidable argument. Let us keep things as intended by round 1.

Now, the first thing we must take into consideration is that there is no need for me to examine the laundry list of debates which my opponent cited in round 1. Examination isn't necessary as I shall show below.

Neglecting the fact that my opponent's reasoning for malicious voters voting against him is non sequitur (just because his win ratio drops, it doesn't automatically lead us to conclude that people are out to spite him), the fact of the matter is that EVERYONE on debate.org has the option of "self voting via multiple accounting." Even my opponent (and for all we know, he has done it, which would even explain the rumors about him having multiple accounts) could use multiple accounts to tip the voting in his scale. Even assuming my opponent hasn't utilized this "advantage", it doesn't mean he didn't have access to it.

Furthermore, my opponent also has access to the so-called "advantage" of spiteful voters. My opponent isn't the only one whom individuals have the potential to dislike on this website. Take me for example: Voters have voted against me on all of my debates at least 5 or 6 times now (hence my new profile info). Once again, everyone has the potential to be disliked and voted against by illegit voters. The most we can do is conclude that this advantage hasn't been utilized in favor of my opponent. Nonetheless, it's still in possession.

Thus, since everyone on debate.org has this "advantage", it really can't even be considered an advantage. After all, if both sides possess the same ability, neither will ever be in a better position than the other based on this ability .

Disagree? Lets look at an example: For years, Robby always had the advantage over Billy in track races due to his superior speed. But eventually, Billy trained hard enough and was able to gain speed equal to that of Robby's. With equal speed, there was no longer an advantage or disadvantage of speed. Simple, no?

Therefore, his opponents never had the advantage (as PRO defines it in round 1). Therefore, it is impossible that in at least one of PRO's debates, that his opponent had the advantage.

In the next round, I predict my opponent will attempt to provide an abusive definition of advantage or change his argument. If or when he does one and/or the other, don't buy into his smoke and mirrors.

This round will be relatively short as all I need to do is cover three points by my opponent.

==========
Point 1
==========

The first point bases itself around the idea that there is no gaurantee that my win ratio suddenly dropping multiple points means people are trolling against me. This is a true point by my opponent, there is no gaurantee. It is simply, as this resolution suggests, a possibility.

Also on this point my opponent puts forth the idea that everyone can have multiple accounts to vote for themselves. This is also a possibility however it is a possibility that often times leads to accounts becoming banned. However this point still matters little as in order for my opponent to prove that it was an equal advantage for everyone he would first have to prove that everyone has the same amount of multiple accounts. And even if my opponent could prove everyone has this equal advantage the advantage would still be tipped out of proportion by point 2.

=========
Point 2
=========

My opponent puts forth the implausible idea that everyone has the advantage of spiteful voters. This is also true however it is not an equal advantage, thus my opponents analogy is rather flawed. Not everyone on this website is going to have equal spite, thus some people are going to have more of an advantage than others on this field.

This is where my first point ties in. Even if my opponent could prove everyone has the equal advantage of 20 extra accounts he could never be able to gaurantee equal spite. Thus the spiteful voters with their multiple accounts would give an advantage to a debater. This can be seen through the fact that my opponent complains about spiteful voters attacking him on 6 different occasions while I have only had this happen approximately 4 times. Other debaters have never noticed such a phenomenon.

My first point was not really based on the non sequitur which my opponent committed in round one. In any case, he says it's a true point, so I'll just take this as a concession.

My opponent starts off by imposing a ridiculous burden; he states that the only way I can prove all voters have an equal advantage will be if I can somehow demonstrate that every individual on this website has an equal amount of accounts. First, we must note that my opponent gives no reason as to why my argument concerning the fact that potentially anyone has access to a nigh limitless amount of accounts. Instead of combating my case with reasoning, he simply moves the goal post and tells me that my previous shot didn't count.

Second (and once more), in this debate, we are not discussing whether or not PRO's opponents UTILIZED their advantages (which would hence be actually going through the process of creating multiple debate.org accounts); we're discussing whether or not they actually have access to said advantages in the first place. Given that there are all sorts of free websites (yahoo.com is a popular example) which allow users to create as many email addresses as they wish, I'd say that on balance, this really isn't an advantage since just about anybody has access. This was overlooked in the previous round, so don't consider any burden which my opponent imposes until he actually disproves the above reasoning.

=========
RE Point 2
=========

This falls back to the above point. And like the above point, this is something which my opponent does not truly bother to address. I don't need to prove whether or not spite is utilized on debates equally; I merely need to prove that the advantage of spite exist on both sides with equal potential. So far, PRO has failed to demonstrate how he has more potential for spite than anyone else on this website, much less his laundry list of debates.

The most he has done is attempt to demonstrate that I have more potential for spite than he does since I have claimed that there have been six occasions where my account has been gang raped by numskulls whereas he has claimed that he has merely experienced four. Why should you believe me on this matter? For all you know, I could be lying and attempting to get some sympathy votes. One could say the same about my opponent. Thus, you really have no reason to consider either of our statements on such issues as our testimonies are not to be considered credible, given our intentions in this debate. The mere fact that "other voters have never noticed this phenomenon" is all the more reason not to consider these testimonies.

As for whether or not my analogy is flawed, you must note that this is also something which my opponent does not elaborate on. Furthermore, my analogy had nothing to do with the point he was referring to. Rather, its purpose was to show that equal advantage cancels out the notion of one side having the advantage.

=========
Point 3
=========

As suggested in the comments section, I truly don't remember where I was going with this one. Thankfully, my opponent doesn't bother to provide an argument to back this point up(burden of proof belongs to him since he initiated this claim into the debate). Thus, the point automatically falls apart since it has no premise.

I believe what my opponent is attempting to argue is that "It is possible that in at least one of the below listed debates my opponent had utilized the advantage." Unfortunately, this is not the resolution, hence my opponent has yet to even uphold his side of the actual resolution. With this being noted, it is quite obvious that the vote must go to CON.

As this will be my final round I will be covering each point my opponent has put forward and then summarizing.

=========
Point 1
=========

In my last speech I granted that I had committed the non sequitur fallacy, I obviously cannot prove that people have in fact trolled me, thus it is simply a mere possibility. As my opponent agrees with me here I will let this point lie.

Next my opponent attempts to discount my burden of proof. In all reality this matters little. I didn't even have to offer the burden of proof, all I really needed to offer was the idea. It is nearly statistically impossible that everyone on this site somehow has the same number of accounts. My opponent would be correct if he stated it is still a possibility, however unlikely, unfortunately for my opponent possibility does not detract from my case at all.

Finally on this point my opponent states that we are not debating whether or not people actually used the advantage we are simply debating whether they have access to the advantage. This is rather fallacious, let's examine a quick counter example.

In the NFL much like debate.org there are certain rules that are posed. One such rule circles around using certain steroids, drugs that enhance performance. These rules are of course in place because such drugs give players an unfair advantage.

The same is true in this scenario. Much like the NFL debate.org has rules and because of the rules of fair play it also has unfair ways to gain advantages. If we are going to simply say it is not an advantage because everyone could unfairly use them then we might as well say the same of the NFL or really any advantage at all. There is always going to be someway that someone can potentially match the advantage, this does not detract from their being an advantage in the first place.

Thus in this scenario, someone is going to have an advantage through multiple accounts and/or trolling. It is possible that I play by the rules (for clarification I do but my opponent is going to ask me to prove this and I can't) and therefor it is possible that in one of the above debates someone had an advantage.

=========
Point 2
=========

Once again we appear to be debating equal potential. I have of course covered this above. My opponent argues that I have failed to show how I have more spite than other debaters. This of course is not important (though I thought it was probably apparent through the fact that I have so many debates) as I am advocating mere possibility. It is POSSIBLE that I have spite, thus it is POSSIBLE that someone had an advantage in one of the above listed debates.

And also on this point, if my opponent would actually like to prove that spite will always be proportionally equal in every debate I would ask him to show a reason why this would be true. As much as it would be interesting if everyone liked everyone else the same it isn't quite true.

Next my opponent attempts to back out of a statement he made early, specifically my opponent originally stated,

"Take me for example: Voters have voted against me on all of my debates at least 5 or 6 times now (hence my new profile info)."

And now he is stating,

"For all you know, I could be lying and attempting to get some sympathy votes."

This statement makes me a little sad. It is rather apparent that my opponent has lied to the debating community in his first round. He has realized that his point actually hurts him more than helps, and is trying to squirm out of it. I ask the voters to reject this attempt as it goes directly against any form of honest debate, this is after all debate.org, if my opponent wanted to create fabrications he should do so on his own time, outside of debates.

Furthermore the fact that my opponent has already lied shows that he cannot be trusted. I ask that voters vote against my opponent on this premise alone as it will discourage my opponent from lying in the future and promote honest debate on this website.

Next my opponent states that the fact that other voters have never noticed this proves his case. This would be true if I was not being straw manned with this statement. In my round 2 I was speaking of people noticing this about their own accounts, not Logical's account.

I agree that my opponents analogy shows that equal advantage cancels out advantage. Sadly my opponent is not debating equal advantage he is debating potential advantage, and through his analogy he actually admits that I am correct. He starts it off by saying that four years ago Robby had an advantage over Billy but then Billy trained hard and now Robby has no advantage.

This is a parralel to our current situation. As I possibly do not use multiple accounts, and as I possibly have more spite than other, I therefor possibly am at a disadvantage.

=========
Point 3
=========

I actually only initiated this point because I was interested in seeing what my opponent might have to say. As he didn't actually argue anything on it I will simply drop it.

I ask that if my opponent brings up any new points in his last round on this that they are disregarded as I will have had no chance to respond to them.

Once more, regardless of how he phrases it, the fact of the matter was that his argument for possibility was fallacious. PRO has yet to provide a correct argument and simply continues in saying that it's a possibility. Since there's no logical premise, this point fails and is harmful to his case.

Next, my opponent dismisses the burden he had set up in the previous round through claiming it was unnecessary on his part as he merely needed to offer the idea. To this, I say that regardless of whether or not the idea is simply put on the table, that doesn't change the fact that it's COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO THIS DEBATE, due to the context (more on that in a moment), hence, you have ABSOLUTELY no reason to take it into consideration when determining your vote.

In response to PRO's counter example, it is rather fascinating. That said, it really (REALLY) pains me to say that it reaks of the false analogy fallacy. Not only that, but this argument has cost my opponent this entire debate. Let us examine it for a moment.

He says that by my logic, they are not an advantage because everyone can use them. However, can everyone use steroids?

First, in many countries, free usage of steroids is illegal and pricey on the black market. As I had pointed out with yahoo accounts, they are free, legal, and accessible to mostly anyone who even uses them. Due to these facts, not everyone has access to steroids, thus, in no way, does my opponet's analogy correlate with my arguments.

Second ( AND THIS IS THE CLINCHER FOR THIS DEBATE), my opponent comes out and states that ANYONE can have the potential advantage. This is to be considered a CONCESSION TO MY ENTIRE CASE. How? Well, the thing to keep in mind was that the resolution simply states "advantage." In round one, PRO never specified what kind of advantage should be taken into account as well as what kind was to be excluded. Since "potential" is a certain kind of advantage and since PRO didn't dispute my usage (without clarification in round 1) until AFTER I had brought up it up (hence moving the goal post fallacy)(and note that he didn't make this argument until round 3), he objectivally loses the debate.

=========
RE Point 2
=========

Once more, potential advantage is a form of advantage and is hence fair game in this debate. The fact that my opponent did not clarify in round 1 as well as the fact that he is only disputing this NOW in round 3 (moving the goal post: http://en.wikipedia.org...), thus this should be enough reason for you to dismiss his advocation to reject my argument on this matter.

Next, my opponent tries to get out of producing an argument to show that it's feasible that he has unequal spite on at least one of his debates. He says it's unnecessary for him to produce an argument due to the fact that we are simply talking about possibility. Ladies and gentleman, this is a fallacious argument and is yet ANOTHER MAJOR REASON TO VOTE CON. The fact of the matter is that it's PRO's job is to DEFEND his case. In each of his rounds, you'll note that he has NOT provided an argument to conclude that it's possible that people have spited him. Basically, he has just been begging the question ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ). Whether or not he or you think it's already possible does not excuse resorting to this fallacy (especially on a debate such as this which is made to discuss whether or not something is possible). The only way to justify such an error would be to have provided an argument on anything being possible (and as you can see, my opponent could not present a premise for such an argument, all the more reason being why his point 2 is to be rejected).

I've successfully advocated potential advantage fr spite, so there's no reason for me to take up my opponent's challenge to prove proportional advantage.

Next, my opponent attempts to label me as having attempted to back out of my statement, but upon closer inspection, you'll realize that I have done no such thing. Above, I submitted a personal testimony (which my opponent's case consisted of as well). Does this mean I personally condone the usage of such a testimony? Not at all. Rather, the mere usage of my testimony simply cancels out his. This is simply a practice of negating invalid evidence with evidence equally invalid, which is to demonstrae the futility of using invalid evidence. PRO justifies this practice as he does the same in this debate when it concerns opinion (which is usually inadmissible evidence): http://www.debate.org...

Furthermore, you'll note that in no place do I ACTUALLY DENY what I said (hence making my opponent's claim a false dichotomy). I simply state that as evidence in a debate, it is invalid. Given that this is the case, the only one WHO HAS LIED IS NONE OTHER THAN MY OPPONENT. Thus, as my opponent suggested, you should vote against him to discourage him from his foul practices.

Also, pay special attention to this quote from one of PROs debates: ". . . where as he has stopped such strategies online I have continued to use them. I will commonly accuse opponents of not upholding burdens of proof where non-exist, advocate sound but faulty ideas to lay voters, and even force my opponent to play by my own rules where none should exist."( http://www.debate.org...). This line alone is proof of his MALICIOUS intentions.

As for the round 2 statement about other voters not noticing, my opponent did not clarify on this statement in a means that would convey what he is saying now; he clearly states that "other voters have not noticed such a phenomenon" DIRECTLY AFTER referring to both his debates and mine. In short, blame goes to PRO.

As for the latest response to my analogy presented in round 1, this is merely a strawman concocted by PRO. I agree that we are debating potential advantage. My argument is that there is EQUAL potential advantage for both sides,thus negating the very notion of one side having the advantage.

Also, it is my opponent's downfall to come out and agree with my analogy as you'll note that I don't discuss the advantage being utilized (a key factor to note for my opponent's case). Rather, I'll simply say that both Billy and Robby are now equals. However, this does not conern them actually racing again. For instance, if Robby were to race Billy while merely running at 50% of his capacity for speed, both would still have access to an equal advantage, but it would merely be Robby who was utilizing the advantage.

This parallels our current situation in that PRO has access to the advantage of multiple accounts (yahoo.com), has the same capacity for spite as others (which, due to lack of an argument, PRO conceded this point), and therefore had an equal advantage to each of his opponents.

=========
Point 3
=========

PRO drops this, thus drops 1/3 of his case.

VOTERS:

A) My opponent had conceded to potential advantage being the kind of advantage that everyone on debate.org has an equal amount of. This alone wins me the debate due to lack of clarification in round 1 and 2.

B) My opponent drops 1/3 or his entire case.

C) My opponent never managed to prove that his side of the resolution was possible. Even if you're willing to go so far as to believe that he ended up refuting my arguments, the fact of the matter was that the closest he came to PROVING his side was possible was the instance where he begged the question (which is a fallacy) in an argument that concerns possibility as well as the instance where he resorted to the non sequitur fallacy (the fallacy mooted his argument there).

D) My opponent has been advocating that his opponents had utilized the advantage. This was not his job according to the resolution.